The top prosecutor in Orlando, Florida, took to a podium outside the Orange County courthouse last week to outline a new policy: Her office would no longer seek the death penalty in any capital case.

The prosecutor, State Attorney Aramis Ayala, told assembled reporters that seeking the death penalty is “not in the best interests of this community or in the interest of justice.” After considerable research, she said, she had concluded that capital punishment offers no empirical benefits to society: It is not a deterrent, it neither enhances public safety nor protects law enforcement officers from violence, and it costs millions more — in litigation and housing — to kill a defendant than it does to confine them behind bars for life.

And in Florida in particular, she said, the death penalty system has been the “cause of considerable legal chaos, uncertainty, and turmoil.”

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court last year found the state’s capital sentencing scheme unconstitutional. Florida’s highest court subsequently concluded that more than 200 of the 381 inmates on death row in the state could be eligible for new sentencing hearings as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

Even with the system in such disarray, Ayala’s decision to stop seeking the death penalty was bound to be controversial. But the announcement has kicked off a firestorm — especially due to its impact on a high-profile murder case, in which a man named Markeith Loyd is accused of killing his pregnant ex-girlfriend and, perhaps more politically potent, an Orlando police officer.

The controversy sets Ayala, the first black elected state attorney in Florida, who campaigned last year on a promise to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system, against Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott, and the knee-jerk “tough-on-crime” politics still prominent in the state.

Loyd opened fire on his ex-girlfriend, Sade Dixon, and her brother last December, killing Dixon and critically injuring her brother before fleeing the scene. Several weeks later, he shot and killed police Lt. Debra Clayton when she approached him in a parking lot. He was finally arrested after a nine-day manhunt. At a press conference with Ayala standing behind him, Orlando Police Chief John Mina expressed relief that Loyd had finally been apprehended. “I was extremely happy that this dangerous person was off the street,” he said.

Last week, Mina told the Orlando Sentinel that he is now “furious” with Ayala’s decision not to seek death for Loyd. “If there was [ever] a case for the death penalty, this is the case.”

The Loyd case prompted Gov. Scott to intervene. On the same day that Ayala announced her new policy, Scott asked her to recuse herself from prosecuting the case, and then, when she declined to do so, issued an executive order to forcibly remove and replace her by bringing in a prosecutor from another jurisdiction.

“She has made it clear that she will not fight for justice and that is why I am using my executive authority to immediately reassign the case,” he said in a press statement.

Scott’s decision has prompted its own backlash, with more than 130 legal scholars — including two former chief justices of the Florida Supreme Court — signing on to a letter to the governor challenging the legality of his interference.

Notably, Dixon’s mother has said she supports Ayala’s decision not to seek the death penalty for her daughter’s murderer. Lt. Clayton’s family has not commented publicly on the matter.

Policy Versus Politics

“Prosecution has been known as, ‘We have evidence, we proved [the] case. Done,’” Ayala said last year. “The mindset of the people who just wanted more integrity, more transparency, more consistency, higher levels of justice, they opened their arms to my campaign.”

Given the tenor of her campaign, it is not entirely surprising that Ayala would decide that Florida’s death penalty scheme is untenable. In announcing her decision last week, Ayala stressed that she was approaching the matter dispassionately. She had not arrived at her decision “arbitrarily or emotionally.” Rather, she said, it was an “evidence-based policy decision.”

Scott’s split-second reaction to oust Ayala suggests a different approach — and one that is legally questionable.

It is true that a Florida statute provides the governor with a mechanism to replace a state attorney, when that prosecutor is “disqualified” from representing the state or “for any other good and sufficient reason.” Exactly what that means is unclear, said Karen Gottlieb, co-director of the Florida Center for Capital Representation at Florida International University School of Law.

“It’s very vague, frankly,” Gottleib said. She notes that state law also requires Ayala to be elected by the people in the district she represents, and to uphold their values and priorities. She is also charged with using discretion in carrying out her duties. Scott’s actions step on her ability to represent the voters who elected her, Gottlieb argues. If the death penalty were a mandatory punishment, that might be one thing, but it is not — the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed the death penalty as a mandatory punishment — and choosing when and if to seek death is an entirely discretionary matter.

“It doesn’t seem like there’s any possible assertion that [Ayala’s decision] is in bad faith or that she is refusing to exercise her discretion, which would be a different situation, or if it were mandatory and she said, ‘I’m not going to do it,’” Gottlieb said. Instead, it is simply a situation of Scott “substituting his views with her exercise of discretion. And I think that’s a dangerous precedent.”

That same point is made in the letter that judges, prosecutors, and law professors sent to Scott this week. Not all of the signatories agree with Ayala’s decision. However, they wrote, “we do agree that she had the authority and discretion to make it.”

“The governor picking and choosing how criminal cases are prosecuted, charged or handled in local matters is troubling as a matter of policy and practice,” the letter continues.

Ayala has signaled that she will fight back; on Monday she filed a motion seeking to stay the Loyd case until the matter is sorted out. In the document, Ayala says Scott called her just hours after she made her announcement to ask her to leave the Loyd case. After refusing to step aside, she “asked Governor Scott if I could explain all that had gone into my decision,” she wrote. “Scott said he was only interested in my recusal and refused to have a detailed conversation.”

The motion also states that the governor does not have the power to remove her, “a popularly elected state attorney.” Under the Florida Constitution, Ayala argues, “I retain complete authority over charging and prosecution decisions.”

It’s not just the governor’s office that has gone after Ayala.

A finance director in the Seminole County courts office, Stan McCullars, was suspended after he posted racially charged messages on Facebook. “Maybe SHE should get the death penalty,” he wrote. “She should be tarred and feathered if not hung from a tree.”

Other elected state’s attorneys felt the need to issue a statement saying they would certainly continue to seek the death penalty in qualified cases. State lawmakers have proposed slashing the budget for Ayala’s office as punishment. And Republican state Rep. Scott Plakon has suggested Scott should permanently remove Ayala from office.

“In responding to lawlessness, I think that the governor should use the laws as they are in every way to stop lawlessness if it is possible,” Plakon said.

In direct contrast to the histrionic response of Scott and others, Ayala has articulated her decision in a plain and reasoned way.

“An analysis of [the] death penalty must be pragmatic, it must be realistic and not simply theoretical, impulsive, or emotional,” she said last week. “I am prohibited from making the severity of sentences the index of my effectiveness.”

Related

Contact the author:

As an outsider looking in. It has always intrigued me why a supposedly Christian nation has so ardently pursued death penalties in murder trials when the fiscal cost of such efforts far outweigh the benefits.

Here in NZ it is the opposite to this case – many, uneducated I might add, people are calling for the lynching of criminals. Their perceived sense of justice ironically warped by their superior sense of morality.

Well said Kid!, all i can say is the worst of the predatory/colonialist “culture” is so entrenched within our systems, that those who understand the dehumanizing tactic used in so many ways here in the U.S. get shut out by those in ‘authority’.
Heard today Scott pulled 6 cases away from this prosecutor which is illegal i think.
Until we the people waken and take action to stop feeding this and put our energy into the alternatives, we’ll continue down this self destructive path.
What sucks is we’re not the only one’s who’ll suffer.

There’s no evidence for deterrence by murder, and I doubt there is any for extrajudicial executions either. For those about to be arrested on hard charges, the notion of “suicide by cop” might even have a counterproductive allure. I would think the kinder we can make the conditions of separation for those who cannot be trusted in broader society, the more we renounce violence and revenge in these proceedings, the more likely the suspects are to be able to view police as something other than a mortal enemy on a battlefield. A society proves that killing (including killing cops) is wrong by planning a social order where killing is never accepted as a solution.

We will soon have a great alternative for death penalty. We will send all those blokes to Mars and let them populate it and run it as they want, with their own President and their Press. If they can make the planet once again habitable then in a hundred years our grandkids can have a nice vacation spot there. Therefore, this lady is doing a good job collecting astroseeds to germinate a new habitat.

i know you are joking
but not.
Having seen enuf h-wood education entertainment documentary fantasy films about mars and observing the wild west wallstreet corporate ambitions of driverless cars and space-x pizza delivery, my guess is 35 years. Less if the wallstreet wasters make earth less habitable before that, also the overage of population may hasten that desperate demise.

Democrats always have an Excuse and Sympathy and a BIG EXCUSE
for not Punishing the Person who Commits ANY Crime…
” The Victim is always the Enemy “, in the EYES of a Democrat, or the Democrat Party—> ALWAYS !

The victim is not the enemy, but an excuse like Matthew 5:38 does well enough. Very few are so sincere as to do all that Jesus asks, but to omit an unneeded and pointless killing is surely the very first and by far the easiest step on the blessed path described there. Is the mind-crushing pointlessness of a life in jail not already punishment enough, and too much, and more? We need to protect the public, that is true – but beyond there, why take an idle glee in going further?

Many Republicans remember the case of Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in Kentucky. Many of them spoke up for her right to follow her conscience, while continuing in her elected position as county clerk.

The situation with Ayala differs in a few ways:
* Ayala was specifically granted the discretion to seek or not to seek the death penalty in every case. By contrast, court clerks are not granted discretion to not grant marriage licenses, even if they feel a particular pairing is the Worst Idea Ever.

* Ayala is opposing execution, a far more serious “change of status” than marriage.

* Ayala cannot be accused of bias against any particular group of people. This policy is the same for everyone who comes under her fire.

* Ayala is not citing merely a religious motivation not to commit murder, but eminent practical sociological data that shows there is no benefit in it anyway.

* Ayala is not simply standing idle while she fails to file for death penalties, let alone causing disruption to all of her “customers” like Kim Davis did. She is using the time and money she saves from avoiding prolonged agonization over the death penalty to go after more Florida criminals.

If Republicans had any patience for Kim Davis, they should understand that Aramis Ayala has far more justification to do this in every possible way.

Whether or not one agrees with Ayala’s decision, McCullars should immediately be terminated from his position which he is clearly undeserving of holding. He’ll be lucky if someone doesn’t hang *his* racist ass from a tree. Scumbag.

This entire scenario reveals a distinct difference between 2 types of people; ENDS JUSTIFY MEANS vs LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
There is no inbetween. You are either one or the other. If you look at all conflicts in life; iraq invasion, guantanamo, healthcare, etc, you will see this division playing out. A fellow made a point of this division 2017+ years back.

ALTHOUGH I AM PERSONALLY OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY FOR PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS:
I am an individual who can usually see multiple sides of an argument. Sorry Jordan, this woman is being “punished” because she is a class A moron. The death penalty is on the books in Florida, like it or not. As a prosecutor, she should pursue it when warranted. This clown murdered two women, one pregnant, and the other a cop. If This guy does not deserve the death penalty, then no one does. What this prosecutor could have done, and should be doing, is offering each defendant in capital cases one bite at the apple: Plead guilty as charged, take like in prison with no parole, and the death penalty would be taken off the table. Say no to this ONE TIME OFFER, and the death penalty is on the table and will be sought. Instead of taking this low key approach, she decides to make a circus of the who deal and that is why the governor made the decision that was made. And even though Rick Scott has been terrible for Florida, in his place I would have made the same decision he did. There are ways to do things within the scope of one’s authority under the law. This prosecutor made a jack-ass of herself and was slapped down as a result.

Let me float a lead balloon. The death sentence that actually cost more may be more of an injustice to all concerned. The circumstance of death being the easy way out, and life in prison being almost mental torture. You may read all you want of behavior modification….. I don’t think the restriction of daily routine – to my way of thinking is itself life . . .but torture Somewhere in between – there may be some justice. The concern for the victims – and the victims rights….”A rat on an exercise wheel” there is never an end? But death is the end….
I don’t know if there should be a right to death – as exercised by murder or execution…
A LEAD BALLOON…

Scott is out of line, and is in violation of Florida’s constitution. He knows this for a fact. He has no authority to remove a prosecutor for doing her job. She is exercising her discretion as a prosecutor who has evaluated the viability of the death penalty, its uneven and often discriminatory application, and as a result made the informed decision not to pursue such a sentence. This does not mean that she won’t put the defendant in prison if a jury finds him guilty. He will be punished for his crimes of murder. Ayala’s district voted to put her in as prosecutor knowing her position, so obviously There’s no problem there. The family of one of the victims supports her decision, so there’s no problem there. Scott is the one creating the problem. He’s the one who should be removed from office for violating the state’s constitution.

Thanks to Ms. Ayala for her courage and willingness to stand for justice. Yes, there are some people too violent or with too little self-control to be allowed out in public. The states have built plenty of prisons to put those people in (as well as a lot of other people – the US exceeded the Soviet Union’s prison population during the Reagan/Bush41 era.) And especially in the South, states are too willing to go kill prisoners, even though there’s still lots of corruption and prejudice in the courts and sentencing systems, and while paying somebody off for 20 years they spent in prison when they were innocent doesn’t erase all the damage done to them, it’s better than apologizing to the descendants of somebody the state wrongly killed.

After considerable research, she said, she had concluded that capital punishment offers no empirical benefits to society: It is not a deterrent, it neither enhances public safety nor protects law enforcement officers from violence, and it costs millions more — in litigation and housing — to kill a defendant than it does to confine them behind bars for life.

If the death penalty is not a deterrent, then what is? Maybe we ought to devise a system wherein violent lifers are:

1. permanently housed in close physical proximity to hundreds of other violent offenders
2. made to live in cells where no privacy is afforded them
3. deprived of a balanced, healthful diet
4. routinely subjected to brutal and dehumanizing treatment by staff
5. made to endure a system of brutality imposed by their fellow inmates
6. deprived of healthcare that would guarantee a basic level of well being
7. deprived access to law libraries in keeping with their right of appeal
8. financially exploited by their corporate hosts at every turn
9. deprived of any institutional opportunity to improve their lot in life

I am certain that these modest measures will be far more effective as a deterrent…

Alan Dershowitz has suggested incorporating torture into the criminal justice system. Many people who face death with equanimity are terrified by the prospect of a little pain. Of course, if torture proved to be such a great deterrent that no one committed any crimes, you would have to find something for your legions of trained torturers to do. But I’m sure the government could think of something.

Point well taken and made. Sociopaths come in all colors and many rise to positions of prominence. The most intelligent often assume roles that are the polar opposite of that which would be indicative of a sociopathic personality. Yet even the likes of Ol Mr. Dershowitz cannot hide their true nature. Yes, the legalization of torture is a telltale sign of a sick mind as is keeping the company of Jeffrey Epstein and rationalizing Israel’s “apartheid” policies. I am quite certain that Lyndon Johnson was not deterred by the threat of incarceration and/or lethal injection when he sought the death of JFK. Yet, some would have us believe that a “better life” for these poor deprived sociopaths would result in morally virtuous behaviors. For them, it is simply risk vs reward.

But it amazes me that America uses the plight f the poor for profit- prisons truly are the slavery of our era.

Any thinking person would realize that with all the excess land in America, we could teach these lifers basic farming and other technical skills, give them cabins far from civilization, and then let them fend for themselves in the wilds, deprived only of society, but otherwise contained and ‘punished.’

But that would certainly screw up the long game of most Republicans, Clinton’s, Pelosi’s, and Feinstein’s who profit from private prison schemes.

So- you are or aren’t a prisoners rights proponent? Or, does your version of the rights of prisoners come with the caveat of accepting salvation from desert slavers and jeebus, i.e. organized religion?

Yes, it is a spiritual death sense, in the secular humanist way as well- in fact, it is spiritual murder.

And it is not the Republithugs that did it entirely- when the left sacrificed prisoners rights, to ‘women’s issues’ they accepted a false binary, and look at the price we pay now with Trump.

William Bednarz-

Letting prisoners fend for themselves in a controlled natural environment is the ONE THING America will not allow, because it would work, but no one would profit from it, and prison staff jobs would nearly disappear.

But yes- humane, self sufficient penal colonies can work, if we immitate the Norwegian models for example.

deportation….on a small planet it no longer works…Devils Island? A society of felons fending for themselves? Botany Bay? Hard Labor? Medical experiments? What redemption are you looking for…..Sentencing them to prison? FOR.. PUNISHMENT ? AS.. PUNISHMENT?
as old as time – to the moon Alice – the honeymooners??

The word “redemption” suggests that there is an objective and just legal standard that is equally applicable to all. Yet in a capitalist society, privilege and power are the fruits of material wealth. Those who can afford the best lawyers garner the most respect in a court of law where lawyers rule the roost; it is a rigged game. But for wealth, Jeffrey Epstein would have been tried, convicted, and incarcerated for pederasty and OJ Simpson for murder.

If one objectively examines man’s inhumanity to man from a historical perspective, it is ALWAYS those in power who are most guilty (regardless of political ideology). If one wraps the violent death of 500,000 Iraqis in an American flag, the likes of Madeline Alright have an orgasm of cosmic proportion. There is nothing that says POWER and PRIVILEGE like impunity from the legal repercussions of ones own actions.

redemption? the death penalty for those beyond redemption. . . I think justification is closer to what we call justice. but then how would that apply to the “WAR CRIMES” of George W. Bush??
illegal rendition – torture – or even the war itself being based on lies….. Justification of the death penalty has no redemption qualities…..two murders do not make excuse a murder….
The first step would be to remove wealth – back to the common man – Oh, how many wealthy people I would enjoy being broke….removing power from the high and mighty powerful….

Yes. And that’s just its current residents. The state has sent many more there and executed many of them. And hundreds more have actually been exonerated, acquitted on retrial, sentenced to lesser terms or even released.

“She has made it clear that she will not fight for justice and that is why I am using my executive authority to immediately reassign the case,”. This is the typical republican approach to a subject, throw sand in everyone’s eyes, and twist words , in order to confuse the situation.

Ayala did not say that she would not prosecute anyone, she said she would not sentence them to death.

She does not MAKE the law. She has ZERO power to inflict her VIEWS on the entire state. The gov. has a right to relieve her of her position. Simple as that. Change the law. Thats the hard way I know but the only way to change the law. Dems are famous for loving judges b/c that can inflict THEIR lib views and muck up the Constitution AND justice.

it is not a matter of changing the law
it is a matter of changing one’s soul
Some people simply oppose contributing to the deaths of others.
Ayala is exercising her religious right and Nos Feratu is punishing her for that.
Rather sadistic, dont you think?

She does not MAKE the law. She has ZERO power to inflict her VIEWS on the entire state. The gov. has a right to relieve her of her position. Simple as that.

I’d post some paragraphs from the article which go directly to your ignorance, but it would probably be better just suggest that you scroll up to the article and read it for yourself.

It gets old finding again and again the need to say this, but you, “Danny Mann” need to read the article before commenting on it if you’d like to have a shot at posting a comment unlike the one you’ve posted, which has no validity and clearly shows ignorance of what was presented within the article.

Why don’t you try doing that, and then see if there is a chance you could somewhat repair having exposed your lack integrity due to your having commented in ignorance.

I don’t need to read the garbage article to agree with him. I am against death penalty, however this lady is public servant and the law states that there are cases that deserve capital punishment. She can’t force her personal believes into her work, this is the same as that shithead that wasn’t signing gay marriage certificates. Public servants need to follow the law or resign and this should be the case for everyone. Personally I am against capital punishment, but this lady needs to represent state and victims to the full extent of the law. How would people react if we get prosecutor that is “liberal” on rape or drags or viallance

Again, to whomever you are, you need to read the article if you would have any chance at all to learn why you’re making an ass of yourself. What you have written is simply not true. It is completely incorrect, and has nothing to do with with whether or not you agree or disagree with the incorrect nonsense that Governor Scott used to back his tyrannical play, or the words that finance director in the Seminole County courts office, Stan McCullars, used to express his opinion. Both of them and you are wrong on the facts.

She’s not changing the law, nor forcing her views on others, she’s doing her job, in the manner that the majority who elected her expected. Her job is to decide which possible crimes the evidence supports a finding of guilt, and which possible sentence that finding of guilt should merit. All she’s done is the flip side of ‘mandatory minimum’ folks do, say there is a maximum beyond which no amount of evidence can support worsening the sentence.

Seems like these old white sons of bitches seem to be the root of most the problems. As an old white guy, I’ve been voting against them. Seems like there should be enough “not white men” to make a change.

Nay, this is just more racist thinking. There are plenty of Bernie Sanders types out there. Stereotyping white guys because of what a few well-connected ruling families do is like stereotyping blacks over what a few gang leaders are up to.

I had not really been sure before today whether the Sane Prosecutor was an entirely mythical beast, the bastard offspring of wishful thinking and willful self-delusion. Aramis Ayala is a name we should remember. My bet is that she will continue to be a better lawyer than her state’s governor, until she is her state’s governor, so I’m moderately hopeful this case will go in her favor.

The death penalty is nothing but the modern form of lynching, and opponents of civil rights in this country will fight to preserve it.

The fact that so many powerful white men are seeking to preserve this practice, which is disproportionately applied to the poor and minorities, speaks volumes.

I would like to hear police chief Mina’s logic behind this being a “perfect case.” It seems like a rather emotional response from someone who wants vegence- not justice. How does the severity of the crime justify state sanctioned murder? How does it negate the prosecutor’s logical reasons for not pursuing the death penalty?